If grown-ups have a personal umbrella insurance policy, on top of their underlying homeowners and auto policies, wouldn’t the umbrella underwriter pay for reasonable charges assessed against the named insured by the rescue service(s) if its uncertain whether negligence is involved (or even in the case of gross negligence), or wouldn't the underwriter at least pay for the legal defense of the insured? Sure wish one of the fine attorneys on this site would brief this issue (in light of the language in several randomly selected umbrella policies).

If you have umbrella coverage, New Hampshire would certainly go after your insurance provider and most NH courts would informally limit recoveries to the extent of insurance. In effect, everyone who is a named insured in an umbrella policy is a first class citizen in that they have pre-paid their "rescued while negligent" assessments (but would still be subject to loss of NH driving privileges, darn). My take is that any time the person rescued has been drinking or taking drugs (such as dope for ADD), he or she is or would be deemed, for better or worse, automatically negligent, so he or she pays for the search & rescue with PayPal.

State Farm and All State in my state, surprising cover a number of risks that are not otherwise covered by underlying policies, such as non-business related libel and slander (who would have guessed?). (However, I still advise grownups to never talk to a newspaper reporters, but I'm just a kid and what do I know.) No other type of non-business insurance that I'm aware of covers liable and slander.

Could Lloyds be persuaded to write search and rescue insurance, to be sure? Good question. There are some Hunting Club Liability Policies that I've seen that are sure knocking on the door of covering these risks if the search is related to hunting club pursuits, whether on public or private land.

Why doesn't the Eagle Scout make a reconventional demand against the park (F&W) service and/or the rescue agencies? In my part of the country, the Eagle Scout would not only have an excellent case, but he'd also be handsomely compensated for his pain and suffering [including, but not limited to the mental anguish suffered by the implementation of an arbitrary $25,000 fine (i.e. rounded up to the nearest $25,000 --- seems as if in NH public officials like to round a lot, but this is the price the NH citizens pay for under funding the school system for so many years)]. If I were an Eagle Scout, I'd settle for $2,500,000, an apology from the Governor on behalf of all NH citizens, attorney's fees and the immediate resignation of the Executive Director. The park service would then think a lot more than twice before drawing more incoming by recklessly implementing more of these nice, fat & round fines in $25,000 increments.

Where this is heading is that people are going to think a whole lot before they even consider calling for help if he or she, a family member, friend or someone they don’t know is or could be lost and injured or lying very very still, especially while in the dark, damp, cold, tick infested New Hampshire woods. This is going to greatly lessen the need for volunteers and paid rescue services. It will also lessen the reason for being of the national and state park systems, or at least their bloated staffs, and I’ll have you know its for the greater good. Not only the victim but the caller or person who “stupidly” reports the potential wildernism emergency could be held liable for fines and the cost of searches, and the caller could be subjected to hard time. On my solo mis-adventures, and in light of my helplessly meager resources (no thanks to the repressive child labor laws), the only time I'd be calling for rescue would be when there is a lot less than remote chance, god forbid, I can claw my way out.

Actually, I believe they will think a whole lot more before considering going out into the wilderness unprepared.

Most folks do not want to suffer and/or die when pursuing life's interests. As with all such endeavors, it is suitable to become informed of and prepare for reasonable risks associated with activities, and given the opportunity, I believe most responsible people will avail themselves of the proper knowledge and preparations to mitigate such reasonable risks. The key qualifier here is the opportunity to be proactive about it. I don't know too many "experienced" people that would just go pick up an acetylene torch and try to start cutting steel with it, or a table saw, or a gun, or a car. A reasonable person is going to evaluate the situation up front before taking action, and do all they can reasonably to prepare for it. Does that mean they will always avoid the need for rescue? Certainly not, but if they are aware ahead of time that rescue may not necessarily be free, and that there are avenues for them to pursue which will satisfy their obligations should a rescue be needed and payment is authorized, then I don't see why a person so prepared would not contact the rescuers upon determining their services are needed.

In fact, by excersing a little due diligence up front, I expect that rescues might go off a bit smoother, because the forethought required to make the insurance decision would lead to more preparations by the adventurer in other aspects that lend to avoidance of a bad situation as well as better equipped to deal with one.

I don't know as the Eagle Scout in this case would successfully argue his case for reconvening. I suspect that the department/agency would have no problem demonstrating the requisite details of billing associated with the levied fine. In fact, I suspect if they were so challenged, they could easily exacerbate the value and show cause for an increase in the amount cited. It would be better given the information available for the scout and his family to seek settlement outside of court and not challenge the agency. More than likely, the agency had already sought legal consel on the matter and had cleared an excessive fine amount through proper documentation, and was already judgement proof at the time of the citation. The family would be at a serious legal disadvantage in such a challenge, and victory, if any, would come at a high cost in attorneys and court time. They could fight the good fight I suppose, but would it really be worth it, when they could settle for less than 1/5 the face value of the fine?

NH RSA 206:26-bb is poorly drafted, disjointed and sophomoric at best, if not reckless. Obviously the law's preparers had little if any knowledge of the New Hampshire area. There is hardly a single sentence in the so called law that is clear. It contains and repeats undefined terms. There could not have been any legal input whatsoever in drafting this law. One of the major contributors to the plan didn't even live in New Hampshire and does not have to live with the law's consequences; rather its more obvious he or she must live on beech front property in Florida.

Its futher obvious that the legislators were heavily boozed-up when this law was written (they are noted for this type of peculiar NH behavior - especially the ones that like two double scotch and sodas before the day gets started during legislative session - and you know who they are). No attorney was anywhere near the various drafts during legislative process. If they were, I'd like to know what law school they attended - certainly any such attorney didn't graduate in the top 5% of their class. For that matter, 95% of the NH attorneys didn't graduate in the top 5% of their law school class.

One of the many examples of NH legislature being asleep at the wheel as to the writing of this law is that the fish and game employees themselves are subject to these life (as they know it) ending financial penalties whenever they require or direct that a search be done for anyone. The executive director his or her self is in a situation where he or she would have to fine his or her self in $25,000 increments if he or she acts negligently in ordering a search and rescue. I say, throw the NH bums out of office and replace the NH legislature's attorneys with ones that at least have a tendency, when so inclined, to think right (I know that's a lot to ask) and especially with ones that can read and write (to the extent they exist in NH, although I have my doubts).

Grady,

That's a lot of good insight into NH lawmaking, and I suspect it is not as rare an event nationally as we would like to hope for. While I am not experienced with municipalities with such poor performance legislatively, I can understand how this would happen, especially in an east coast community.

If they really did act so capriciously, then they should be taken to task (if not the woodshed) and called out for the incompetents they are. Invoking rules like this without benefit of legal advice is just asking for trouble.

But tell us how you really feel? LOL

Hogwash,

If you really want to start making people responsible for their
actions, go after those that cost us all the real money-

"Obesity costs US health system $147 billion-study"

http://www.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNews/idUSN2752960820090727

not some Eagle Scout out for his health who sprains an ankle.